# Cheney's Speech on Iraq **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 11, 2003, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-speech-on-iraq/206899 "2003-10-11T21:01:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2003, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-speech-on-iraq/206899/41 "2003-10-13T13:22:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by adaher \* > But the point still stands. Panama and Grenada were actually 100% unilateral. No UN approval, not even an attempt, and not even any British support. Firstly, remind me again what your point was, because I thought we were discussing it. Secondly, are these two countries, these two small exceptions, the “many” more unilateral wars you alluded to earlier? Thirdly, let’s take a closer look at an example. The US had the backing of six other Carribean nations when it invaded Grenada, an island in the immediate vicinity of those concerned (including the US!), just six days after a bloody coup from a Marxist dictator, to be seen as part of the lengthier Cuban conflict, and with the further reason of a thousand American students present on the island. Rather more cause right there than was reasonably provided for Iraq, and I think most involved woulf agree that the US can’t be criticized for taking action in Grenada. The Iraq situation is quite different. > [@](#): > > Seems that you object more to WHO was in the coalition than the fact it was a coalition. No, I object because it was a highly dubious coalition. I particularly appreciate the input provided on Iceland. In Spain and Italy, among other members of “the willing”, opposition against the war or involvement in the war ran extremely high – 90% or higher. Not a terribly good day for democracy. > [@](#): > > The simple fact of life in the world is that even “multilateral” operations involve the US providing the vast majority of the power. The only purpose of getting other nations on board is for diplomatic cover. It doesn’t matter one whit whether Canada contributed troops, or France, or Germany, because nothing they provided would have had a substantial effect on the war anyway. You see to be missing my point. This isn’t a matter of the make-up of the invading forces, rather it’s about the level of international support provided. And how difficult it was getting even that questionable level of support from all but a very few states. Support that the US’s closest neighbours and allies flatly refused, so poorly justified was the case. > [@](#): > > Multilateralism is purely optional. It is not a requirement for action. This is short-sighted falsehood. Multilateralism is very simply the best way to interact with the rest of the world. Unilateralism is simply going to lead to resentment and people or countries doing something about that resentment, in manners acceptable or not. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2003, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-speech-on-iraq/206899/42 "2003-10-13T13:27:04Z")
‘White’ is what I was looking to omit. Christianity has played a key role in Western civilization (more so in the past), and I certainly wouldn’t want to leave it out. But however interesting the sub-topic, I’ll end my part in the hijack. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2003, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-speech-on-iraq/206899/43 "2003-10-13T14:02:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Brutus \* > You say it as if it were a bad thing. But here I sit, waiting for disks to mount, so lets break it down > > \ > > The UN has been, and will forever be, the Security Council, and a bunch of other countries that show up for the coffee and donuts. Hell, the UN has served the empire very well. But then again, it was designed in the first place to do just that. I think my point was that the UN is used to impose a particular partisan and self-serving agenda (White, Christian, Capitalist, yada) on the rest – make that the overwhelming majority – of the world. Is that a bad thing ? Not if your only interest is the interest of the US Is it moral, ethical, decent, etc. ? Of course not, but the voters don’t know that Problem arises (for me) when the UN is then used (as per Iraq) as the moral arbiter e.g. a Resolution would have made the war legit – nope, it just means the interests of the five permanent member coincided or deals were achievable. \ ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2003, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-speech-on-iraq/206899/44 "2003-10-13T14:40:27Z")
I can’t beleive people still defend the “coalition” of the willing. If ever there was a more pathetic attempt at putting some legitimacy buying off small nations. Bush kept repeating the 30 countries with us… screw western europe and the rest of the western hemisphere and Asia. US internal consumption of BS only. Please Adaher do yourself a service and don’t claim it was a real coalition at all. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2003, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-speech-on-iraq/206899/45 "2003-10-13T16:18:39Z")
From adaher > [@](#): > > It doesn’t matter one whit whether Canada contributed troops, or France, or Germany, because nothing they provided would have had a substantial effect on the war anyway. I’d have to say this statement is both correct and incorrect at the same time. True, the US invariable provides the majority of the troops in most conficts we participate in fully. True, the US military is usually most decisive factor in most conficts we fully participate in post WWII. However this leaves out the main reason for having a true and powerful colitian (a la GW I)…money. True, the US can and has done it alone militarily. We HAVE the most powerful military force in the world, bar none. However, we are presently also footing the majority of the bill monetarily for this recent conflict, and will continue to do so in the near future. Because we are pretty much footing the whole bill (less what Britian is contributing), our cupboard is pretty bare at home now. If something else comes up and we NEED those troops and toys, well, we won’t have them. In addition, wars cost ungodly amounts of money. We can’t afford easily to have another conflict, reguardless of how worthy it will be. Another conflict will push our economy over the edge IMO…mostly because we tried to do this alone without the backing we should have tried to get before trying such an adventure. Contrast that with the first gulf war where we had a powerful colitian of countries FULLY supporting us and helping defray the costs and you kind of get the point (I remember especially Japan and Saudi contributing vast sums of money to us), which is this ‘colitian’ that Bush put together is nothing more than a fig leaf, with only Britian fully backing us up as well as they can. from Rashak Mani > [@](#): > > I can’t beleive people still defend the “coalition” of the willing. If ever there was a more pathetic attempt at putting some legitimacy buying off small nations. Bush kept repeating the 30 countries with us… screw western europe and the rest of the western hemisphere and Asia. US internal consumption of BS only. I can’t say I often agree with Rashak Mani (read almost never), but I have to agree that this whole colitian thing is really very weak and the supporters of the administration would be better served to basically just drop it completely and go with their arguments that it was something worth doing alone (I disagree, but some feel it WAS worth doing for its own sake) with only Britian’s help and leave it at that. As to the OP about Chaney…well, I’ll give him the benifit of the doubt and say that he may very well BE worried about WMD being used against the American people. Of course, he probably IS using that to make political hay also…he’s a politician for gods sake. Are his lips moving? Well, if so, he’s bound to be exagerating if not outright lieing about something then. Same goes for the rest of that pack of thieves on both sides of the political fence… -XT ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2003, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-speech-on-iraq/206899/46 "2003-10-13T20:20:41Z")
Sure there’s a coalition, it’s the one opposed to action by the US on the US timescale and outside of a new UN Resolution. Actually, the real coalition is pretty much the UN - unless we’re referring to the post-war ‘Coalition of the Drilling’. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2003, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-speech-on-iraq/206899/47 "2003-10-13T22:07:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rashak Mani \* > \*\*I can’t beleive people still defend the “coalition” of the willing. If ever there was a more pathetic attempt at putting some legitimacy buying off small nations. Bush kept repeating the 30 countries with us… screw western europe and the rest of the western hemisphere and Asia. US internal consumption of BS only. > > Please Adaher do yourself a service and don’t claim it was a real coalition at all. \*\* However much it may burn your ass to admit it, the war in Iraq was not a ‘unilateral’ action by any meaning of the word. There was, and is, a coalition, and GW is correct to state this fact. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2003, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-speech-on-iraq/206899/48 "2003-10-13T23:39:07Z")
During the First Gulf war 34 countries provided troops and pretty much the entire world supported it. Other countries provided 26% of the troops and the entire cost of the war was paid by other countries with two thirds of the total being paid by Japan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. In this war the USA has provided pretty much the totality of the troops and the money with the UK providing a token number of troops. The so-called “coalition of the willing” is simply a list of countries who, after some arm twisting by the USA, said they would not express opposition. Some support! The “coalition of the willing” is a joke. > [@](#): > > [United States Puts a Spin On Coalition Numbers](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1325-2003Mar20) March 21, 2003 > > Rumsfeld told reporters: “The coalition against Iraq, called Operation Iraq Freedom, is large and growing. This is not a unilateral action, as is being characterized in the media. Indeed, the coalition in this activity is larger than the coalition that existed during the Gulf War in 1991.” > > However, the current operation in Iraq is almost entirely a U.S.-British campaign, with virtually no military contribution from other countries except Australia. . . Even our great allies Spain, Italy and Bulgaria are not providing troops. The administration asserts that 44 nations are part of the coalition, but officials reach that number by lumping nations providing military units or logistical assistance with an eclectic group of nations – such as Afghanistan, the Dominican Republic, Eritrea, Honduras, Rwanda and the Solomon Islands – that are voicing only political support. The administration further suggests another 10 or so nations support the campaign but do not wish to be publicly identified. The first Persian Gulf War was prosecuted by a 34-nation military force, with each nation listed in the coalition contributing troops on the ground, aircraft, ships or medics. . . Dozens of others nations voiced support for the war against Iraq in 1991, meaning that under the standards used by the current Bush administration, the size of the 1991 coalition likely topped 100 countries. > > Moreover, the list of 34 countries in 1991 did not include Japan, which pledged $4 billion to fund the multinational force and aid frontline states; the Soviet Union, which supported a United Nations resolution authorizing force; or tiny Luxembourg, which paid the fees of Dutch and Belgian ships passing through the Suez Canal. Bush asserted 35 countries were “giving crucial support”. When reporters questioned the figure Fleischer said “The President was working off a list that included countries that refuse to be named publicly but are providing intelligence support”. That’s just pathetic. If someone in this board used the argument that “I have received many private emails of support from other posters even if everybody is against me in public”, he would be laughed at. It seems President Bush has no shame. Interesting links: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf\_War](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-led\_coalition\_against\_Iraq](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-led_coalition_against_Iraq) [http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2003-04-02/panic.html](http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2003-04-02/panic.html) ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2003, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-speech-on-iraq/206899/49 "2003-10-14T00:12:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Brutus \* > \*\*However much it may burn your ass to admit it, the war in Iraq was not a ‘unilateral’ action by any meaning of the word. There was, and is, a coalition, and GW is correct to state this fact. \*\* ``` Seems it was answered by others... ``` Read xtisme above (even thou he almost never agrees with me :dubious: ) and sailor below. Its not unilateral by definition… but its quasi unilateral by all others. If you still think its a REAL coalition please do enlighthen me. One would imagine that doing something major as neglecting national sovereignty would require more support. ---
**Author:** ![seal\_cleaner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@seal\_cleaner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/seal_cleaner)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2003, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-speech-on-iraq/206899/50 "2003-10-15T21:19:43Z")
In a real coalition, combat troops would have been financed by their native countries. Didn’t we pay Poland’s way, as well as most of the other members? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2003, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-speech-on-iraq/206899/51 "2003-10-15T21:33:52Z")
> [@](#): > > …“The President was working off a list that included countries that refuse to be named publicly but are providing intelligence support”… Ah, Ari! You are sorely missed! “Intelligence support”, indeed! No doubt a crack team of spooks from the Seychelles Islands are ferreting out Iraqi operatives even as we speak! Or maybe just analysts… “Mr. President, we have recent intel from Lithuania. They claim Al Queda cells are operating in Estonia.” “Oh, hell, what next?” “Well, we have this message from Estonia…” ---
**Author:** ![Ninas\_grandpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/54ee81/32.png) [@Ninas\_grandpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ninas_grandpa)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2003, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-speech-on-iraq/206899/52 "2003-10-15T22:19:26Z")
And even if a country’s government is on your side, it doesn’t mean the people are. Before the start of hostilities, the majority of the UK public were against the war. ---
**Author:** ![DeadJesus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/35a633/32.png) [@DeadJesus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeadJesus)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2003, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-speech-on-iraq/206899/53 "2003-10-16T21:44:24Z")
> [@](#): > > New Republic, Andrew Sullivan, Charles Krauthammer, Thomas Friedman, Amer Taheri, Glenn Reynolds, and Ralph Peters all made a great case for war. Actually, Thomas Friedman has an [editorial](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/16/opinion/16FRIE.html) today ripping Cheney’s speech and the NYT’s coverage of it. > [@](#): > > “Wow,” I thought, “that must have been an interesting encounter.” Then I read the fine print. Mr. Cheney was speaking to 200 invited guests at the conservative Heritage Foundation — and even they were not allowed to ask any questions. Great. Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein issue messages from their caves through Al Jazeera, and Mr. Cheney issues messages from his bunker through Fox. America is pushing democracy in Iraq, but our own leaders won’t hold a real town hall meeting or a regular press conference. > > Out of fairness, my newspaper feels obligated to run such stories. But I wish we had said to the V.P.: If you’re going to give a major speech on Iraq to an audience limited to your own supporters and not allow any questions, that’s not news — that’s an advertisement, and you should buy an ad on the Op-Ed page. > > Such an approach would serve both journalism and the nation, because it might actually force this administration to listen to someone other than itself. And learning to listen may be the only way the Bush team is going to muster and sustain the support it needs to succeed in Iraq. If Friedman was towing the Bush administration line about Iraq before, he’s certainly not doing it now. My favorite “iron doves” are Christopher Hitchens and Fareed Zakaria (who writes for Newsweek). In his latest [column](http://www.msnbc.com/news/979341.asp) he doesn’t apologize for supporting the war in Iraq, although like Hitchens, he supported the war as an act of humanitarian intervention. Unfortunately, we didn’t go to war because we felt bad for the Iraqis, which is why nobody in the Bush administration put much thought into a post-war plan. We went to kick Saddam’s ass and destroy his WMDs so they wouldn’t get into the hands of terrorists who could use them against us. Nothing more and nothing less. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2003, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-speech-on-iraq/206899/54 "2003-10-17T05:00:25Z")
Just because something isn’t being done for the reasons you like doesn’t mean it isn’t being done. Those reasons are still applicable. Saddam Hussein was overthrown. For everyone who wanted to see that happen, the war was justified. For those that obsess about what the administration’s reasons were it just shows that everything is about Bush. It has reached the point of being a pathology for many people, much the same way people reflexively opposed Kosovo becuase they didn’t like Clinton. Better to see a genocide take place than for a President they hated to succeed. ---
**Author:** ![notquitekarpov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/71c47a/32.png) [@notquitekarpov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/notquitekarpov)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2003, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-speech-on-iraq/206899/55 "2003-10-17T16:38:21Z")
No, Adaher, your second premise (that the war was justified) simply does not logically follow the first premise (that this should be so for everyone who wanted to see Saddam Hussein overthrown). I count myself amongst those who would have been happy for the Iraqi people rise up and take their own country back from a brutal ditator. I cannot, and never will, support unprovoked aggressive wars. This is not just for moral reasons (although that would be enough for me) but also for very practical reasons, including the damage the US/UK action has done to the UN and that the world is now a far more dangerous place than ever as a direct result. Everything the US has done since 9/11 has resulted in increased support for the forces that oppose them. The US has driven the “conflict” right down the street that the opponents hoped they would. It is nothing to do with Bush for me, and everything to do with the foreign policy of the whole administration. I think he is a fool but probably an “honest” fool… ---
**Author:** ![errata](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/839c29/32.png) [@errata](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/errata)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2003, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-speech-on-iraq/206899/56 "2003-10-17T18:10:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by adaher \* > For those that obsess about what the administration’s reasons were it just shows that everything is about Bush. It has reached the point of being a pathology for many people, much the same way people reflexively opposed Kosovo becuase they didn’t like Clinton. Better to see a genocide take place than for a President they hated to succeed. His speech is indicative of future actions of this administration. That’s why the line of reasoning is important. This isn’t spilt milk, this is the state of the frikkin union. Is this how we are fighting the war on terror or isn’t it? The administration seems to think so. THEY are the one’s pushing that angle. Therefore, we should judge them how they are asking to be judged. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2003, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-speech-on-iraq/206899/57 "2003-10-18T04:45:51Z")
Judging them on what they say is important. Judging them on imaginary conspiracies is frivolity in the extreme. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-speech-on-iraq/206899.md?page=2)